THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 710, March 3, 2013"The bottom line is that Western Individualismis under attack from all sides philosophically,and that this is likely a precursor to aneffort to defeat it by force."

"...for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson,
letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800.i

Stimulated by L. Neil Smith's essay of two weeks ago,
"Things I
Know But Can't Prove," and
responses in last week's e-mail comments, I have been giving some
thought to the issue of, "Who are the players on the world
stage?"

Informed by L. Neil's essay and those letters, I have identified
five distinct groups—one of which has two ideologically
dissimilar relevant subgroups—which dominate the world
stage. Although the groups wield more or less significant political
power, they are distinguished more by ideology and worldview than by
their political capability. Four of these are working unabashedly
against individual liberty, the unifying philosophy of the fifth
group, in all of its manifestations.

This essay identifies the groups (and relevant subgroups) and
discusses some of their philosophies and interactions at a very
high level; volumes could probably be read to flesh out the further
details. My purpose here is to get the reader thinking about these
trends and working to help the adherents of individual liberty to
stave off these four disparate lines of attack. Individualists
working together is not a contradiction in terms—American
History is founded on it, and America will only continue to have a
history as a distinct country if we can restore that philosophical
foundation.

My objective is to be frank and speak plainly, with the intent
to inform but not to offend. However, I do not apologize for giving
offense if taken; where this happens, it represents an area where
Individualists, in particular, have to come together if we are to
survive. Please think rationally through the consequences of your
offense.

A digression on motivations: As Thucydides noted, all men's
motivations are guided by three factors: fear, self-interest, and
honor (in the Greek, phobos, kerdos, doxa).ii
In due reflection, I would add love—in all three of the Greek
manifestations, agape (αγαπη),
philos (φιλος)
and particularly eros (ερος)
(broadly translated: love for humanity in general, love for family
and friends, and sexual love). These are arguably subsets of the
first three, but eros in particular can subvert honor, blind a
person to self-interest, and even overcome fear. But each of these
three (or six) motivations has to be considered in a societal
context. Just one example: honor demands that Christians preach to
the "infidels;" it likewise demands Moslems in turn don suicide
vests to destroy them.

1. Western Individualism

The Western Individualists, the intellectual heirs of Locke, Burke,
and Montesquieu, and of their disciples such as Jefferson, Adams, and
Franklin, were the dominant philosophical force in the world in the
19th and early 20th century, until the seductions of progressive
socialism began to subvert individualism. The individualist
philosophy is largely, but not exclusively, the secular concomitant
of the "liberal" Judaism and Christianity of the Eighteenth Century,
and is predicated on the philosophy that "salvation"—whether
in the religious sense or the more secular sense of having a successful
life—is something that is earned by the individual, and that the
individual is honor-bound to strive for, and not by "society" or any
collective group of people. Individual achievement has driven the
greatest successes of the world, in science and in art, even in the
collectivist societies. The dominant motivation of the Western
individualists are honor and self-interest together as self-reliance,
in many combined with the charitable (agape) impulse to help
those in true need as individuals.

But the problem with Western individualism is, uh, individualism.
Western individualism today comprises broad elements of the American
libertarian tradition (including objectivism), evangelical
Christianity and much of true American Conservatism, and some
segments of Judaism. It also includes some so-called civil
libertarians, "sexually liberated" individuals including
some homosexuals and abortion advocates, and a smattering of pagan
philosophies, particularly (but not exclusively) the Asatru, modern
worshippers of the Norse gods.iii
On a national level, Western Individualists are well represented in
the United States (particularly the so-called "Red" states
and counties), many countries of the former British commonwealth,
Switzerland, Israel, and some of the states liberated from the Former
Soviet Union. There are undoubtedly suppressed Individualists in
other countries as well—the oppressed Coptic Christian
minority in Egypt and Christians in China are the examples that I
hear the most about.

Hence the problem, to put it as politely as possible: the inability
of many evangelicals and conservatives to recognize that those with
different sexual mores and religious views can be secular allies for
political purposes. The First Amendment gives us the right to have
different views, while coming together to preserve that Amendment for
all. (It also doesn't prevent us from proselytizing for our belief, either;
that's a collectivist fallacy, about which more, see below.) But this
internal conflict has driven many natural allies of the Individualist
into the "enemy" camp, at least so far as voting is concerned, and it
keeps members of both groups away from the polls completely. Western
individualism was the philosophical foundation that freed the slaves
and made women equal—and allowed the collectivists to claim
both of those victories and many of their beneficiaries.

Because on a global scale, the Western Individualist is grossly
outnumbered. While our enemies have their own issues—among
themselves and within themselves—the disparity in numbers
is staggering. What the Individualist has that our opponents don't
have is the absolute right of the individual to self-defense and
participation in collective defense. We may be outnumbered, but we
are far from outgunned.

2. Western Collectivists

On the surface, Western collectivist thought goes back to Marx and
Engels, but in fact it goes back much farther, to the princedoms and
principalities of Medieval Europe, and before that to the feudal
society which grew in the Dark Ages. (Whether Marx and Engels would
come closer to recognizing modern Socialism than Jefferson and
Madison would to recognizing the current US government would be an
interesting late night drunken bull session, but is not really
relevant to this discussion and would probably require me to actually
read The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, rather
than the synopses with which I'm currently familiar.)

In part, Western collectivism is formed by Christian and Jewish
"Democratic" socialists; the recipients of government largesse
provided by "virtue" of their perverted (and Anticonstitutional)
admixture of Christian charity and "social justice;" those "civil
libertarians" who have been seduced away from economic liberty by
government social largesse or by the disdain of the evangelicals;
"secular humanists" and other atheistic socialists, and the remnants
of communism disguised as the environmental or "green" movement. It
is the philosophy dominant among native European populations, had
encroached on most areas of the former British Empire, and is rampant
in American urban communities. In terms of motivation, it is
self-interest without honor, and honor has been further diluted by
the gross sexualizing (eros) of society.

However, Western collectivism is dominated politically and
philosophically by two groups. Politically dominant are the so-called
"elites," who might also be called the Western Nomenklatura (after the
dominant social class of the former Soviet Union). They are best
described as the modern Feudal Lords—autocrats who determine
the broad, and even the narrow (soda bans, anyone?) freedom of action
of their serfs in return for a dubious promise of safety and security.

However, broad philosophical dominance is probably held by the
"True Believers," adherents of the United Nations Agenda 21 proposal
to "save" the Earth by greatly curtailing human activity, up to and
including mass genocide if necessary to achieve their estimated 600
million human "carrying capacity" of the planet. In the essay
referenced above, Neil Smith identified this group as primarily
comprised of Gaia worshippers in deed if not in name, and isn't
Mother Nature a bitch? Their gross social control, the first
elements of which Feudal Lord Bloomberg is implementing in
New York City, is appealing to the Feudal Lords. If they have a
conflict, it is pending—the discrepancy between the broad
absolute control desired by the Feudal Lords,iv
and the absolute control PLUS depopulation agenda of the True
Believers. George Soros, the financial manipulator and "Liberal"
supporter—I can't believe he's a true liberal; he has just
learned how to profit from the chaos he leaves in his wake—is
probably the dominant Feudal Lord for all that he works behind the
scenes; if he's a True Believer, it is only because he is planning to
end up as world dictator, or at least the power behind the throne,
after the general societal collapse.

But to both groups, the self-assured Christian and the well-armed
Individualist are anathema, and they will work against Individualists
and Christians at every turn. However, except for that one unifying
agenda, they are hardly the allies of the other groups discussed
below.

3. Resurgent Caliphate Islam

While I know the country is exhausted after eleven years of war
in the Middle East, and it's arguably true that conflict with the
Middle East would be non-existent had the US and Britain not
recreated Israel on her traditional soil in partial compensation
for the horrors of the Holocaust, today's situation is what it is.
v

As one wise man said (paraphrased), "I believe that our enemies
will, or at least want to, do what they say they plan to do." We
know that Islam under Shariah law is a vile, misogynistic society
that broadly treats women as less than animals and in many places
mutilates them to make eros unbearably painful; that some
elements within Islam seek to re-establish the pre-World War I
caliphate, with the destruction of the United States and Israel, the
establishment of serfdom ("dhimmitude") among the surviving
Christians and Jews, and the enslavement or death of those of other
religions. As has already been noted, large segments of Moslem
society consider it honorable to don suicide vests or drive
explosives-laden automobiles into civilian Jewish (and other)
populations.

While it is certainly not universal, the ten percent or so of
Islamic society which dominates the balance has perverted Western
concepts of honor and self-interest into a society of death and
destruction. Incapable of creativity, at least since the broad
period more than a thousand years ago when Islam kept art and
science alive through Europe's dark ages, large segments of the
Islamic population are content to live in seventeenth-century
conditions of personal comfort, health, and hygiene while their
secular leaders act like Feudal Lords without the responsibility,
and their religious leaders scheme to acquire nuclear and other
WMD for the eventual destruction of Allah's enemies, permitting
the establishment of a global caliphate under Shariah law.

This latter is a common threat to both Western Individualists
and Western Collectivists, but the latter have reached some sort
of understanding with the Islamists to the mutual detriment of
the Individualists, and particular the Christians among the
Western Individualists. The Western Feudal Lords think they have
common ground with the Islamic Feudal Lords (anecdotally, I've
heard stories from the military of my acquaintance how foolish
that is, and I'm referring to their efforts at military cooperation,
not the two wars with Iraq and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan).
The True Believers seem to believe that they can manipulate the
Islamic extremists into doing their dirty work—and that
they can control the consequences afterward. The number of Moslems
with organizational terrorist ties working their way into the US
government under the present Administration bears testimony to the
status of both lines of cooperation.

However, Islam has its own objectives, its own logic. It seeks
its own feudalism with its royal families and imams at the top,
and the rest of the world under its dominion through Shariah law.
Its more astute thinkers believe—probably in similar terms—that
if they can remove or neuter the Individualists, the
Western Collectivists will fall to it without a fight in a couple of
generations—and they have a one-generation head start in
Europe.

4. China

I'm not going to say much about China here (in part because I'm
getting close to my practical deadline). The Chinese Feudal Lords
are used to having a billion Chinese serfs, and most of its people
have absolutely no concept of Western mores—if they hear
anything about the United States at all, it is as a weak, decadent
society that will pay dearly for its toys until eventually China
can come in and buy the country outright for its debts. But for the
thrall in which China keeps its serfs, their treatment of other
populations is best described as slavery. And if the EPA believes
that the Chinese will pay any attention to them after they finish
buying the US on the installment plan, I suspect they have a rude
awakening coming.

All the evidence is that China will keep to its own sandbox and
will move slowly to expand beyond those bounds (though movement is
beginning today). But they will absolutely and ruthlessly respond
if provoked, and their response to other populations will plausibly
be enslavement or death. They will play ball with Western and Islamic
Feudal Lords when it's to their benefit, but they undoubtedly hold
both groups in disdain; their only fear is the ability of the Western
Individualist to foil their implacable advance. If they give any
credence to the True Believers, they intend that the survivors will
be all Chinese, and then there won't be any wishy-washy Western
liberals to stop them from taking what they want.

In the meantime, they're content to support the Islamic (and North
Korean) WMD efforts because it diverts Western attention from their
own preparations for the global wars to come.

5. The Recrudescent Soviet Thugocracy

At this point, Russia and the former Soviet client states that
have not rejoined the West (and which comprise the bulk of the
non-US Individualists in the West) is arguably the least of the
five major contenders. But close examination shows that most of
the former Soviet "republics" are led by senior KGB people. As
was outlined by defector Anatoliy Golitsyn in 1984, this was the
plan.vi
I suspect that things are not going completely according to that
plan, but the eventual intent is the re-formation of the Soviet
Union. In the meantime, Russia opposes the United States on many
things, and continues to support puppet regimes among the Islamic
Feudal Lords while warily watching China.

6. The Other Players

The other major players in this little drama are undoubtedly
Japan and India. After four hundred years of Western, Islamic,
and now Chinese colonialism, Africa is a basket case between the
Islamic countries of the Sahara (and Kenya) on the north and
Western-influenced (both Individualist and Collectivist) South
Africa to the south. Japan is largely Western Collectivist but
with less influence from the True Believers (as near as I can
tell). India's caste system prevents it from being truly
either Individualist or Collectivist, and hinders it in other
ways. If push comes to shove, it will probably align with
whichever Western philosophy is currently dominant, though it
has by far the most to lose from the True Believers.

Some Concluding Thoughts

As I discussed this with a couple of friends, one noted that
unemployment in Europe (and real unemployment in the US) are
approaching levels compatible with those at the start of World War
II, and suggested that low employment, with the end goal of global
conflict, may be being manipulated as part of the Agenda 21
implementation.

I will also note that a mass war (with or without implications
of the Revelation of St. John the Divine) between the Westerners
and Islam/China (with the probable assistance of the Thugocracy)
is not inconsistent with Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet
Earth and other "prophecy" and with the apocalyptic writings
of Joel Rosenberg (the Christian minister/author, not the late SF
author), possibly with the True Believers manipulating the conflict
into existence behind the scenes.

The bottom line is that Western Individualism—both
Christianity and secular/political Libertarianism—is under
attack from all sides philosophically, and that this is likely a
precursor to an effort to defeat it by force. As Benjamin Franklin
said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
separately." Western Individualists are better armed than the rest
of the world combined. And we're better armed philosophically,
though you can't tell that from the Collectivist wanna-bes in
the Republican establishment.

If we don't use those advantages—and work together—those
dark prophecies which specifically paint Armageddon
in January of 2017—the month of inauguration of the next
United States president—may well be correct. For at least
some values of correct.

Terence James Mason is the author of No Loopholes:
Getting Back to Basics, an assessment of the meaning of the
Bill of Rights and a suggestion of additional Constitutional
Amendments to restore the Framer's vision for the Republic.
No Loopholes is electronically published by Twilight
Times Books (http://twilighttimesbooks.com)
in Kindle, Nook, and other popular electronic formats. Mason
tweets on the need for #NoLoopholes @OneAmericanVoice. Web site:
oneamericanvoice.me.

Notes

i
The full text of this remarkable letter is to be found at
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/lit/jeff04.htm
accessed 1 March 2013.

ii
I owe this observation not to my close study of the classics but to
Dan Simmons' polemic about the conflict between the West and Islam
at http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm, which together
with the companion piece at
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_05.htm is worth your
consideration in the context of the relevant sections of this essay.
I am further indebted to Lois Bujold's character Aral Vorkosigan (A
Civil Campaign) for this definition of honor: "Reputation
is what other people know about you; honor is what you know about
yourself." In other words, honor is the self-acknowledgement
that you have done your best to play by the rules as you understand
them.

iii
I've met a few Asatru in SF circles, but most of what I know or infer
about them as a religious group was absorbed from John Ringo's fantasy
(I hope) novels of a team of Christian, Wiccan, and Asatru demon
fighters, Princess of Wands and Queen of Wands.

iv
One of my friends suggests that Feudal Lord Bloomberg is going after
the "big gulps" to, er, make the future Big Gulps easier to swallow.
And I personally think that Feudal Lord Cuomo's AntiConstitutional,
anti-gun power play in New York is the trial balloon for disarming
the rest of the country. Whether Bloomberg is also a True Believer
or just plays one because it suits his particular hunger for power
over people's lives, further deponent sayeth not. It remains to be
seen what effect large numbers of citizens returning their
self-defense magazines 64 grains at a time will have on the
momentum of the anti-gun movement. But unless sanity is restored
first, the deadline for that discovery will be sometime in January 2014.

v
Just to clarify, no, I am NOT a "9-11 Truther." A military response
in Afghanistan was essential following 9-11, and I'm confident that
the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. That doesn't
mean that both Presidents Bush didn't screw up by the numbers (the
elder by not eliminating Saddam in 1991 when he had the chance),
or that Obama hasn't doubled down on every flawed Bush II policy
in direct proportion to how destructive such doubling down is. Or
that we wouldn't have been better off, as Jerry Pournelle has
suggested, spending that money establishing energy independence
through mass buildup of nuclear power plants. The problem is not
simple, and is far beyond the scope of this essay. But again I call
your attention to the polemics by Dan Simmons, ibid.